Business Etiquette and Negotiation Case Analysis Answer

It is not easy to win in the negotiation process, and rich experience and vivid skills are of course essential. There is always a connection between enterprises. If there is contact, there will be conflict. The solution to the conflict is that the two sides sit down to communicate and negotiate, that is, negotiate. The following are the answers to several business etiquette and negotiation cases I have compiled for you, hoping to help you.

An American negotiator wants to build a swimming pool at home. The architectural design requirements are simple: 30 feet long, 15 feet wide, with water filtration equipment, and ready before June 1 year. The negotiator is a layman about the cost and construction quality of the swimming pool, but it can't beat him. In a short time, he not only changed himself from an amateur to an expert, but also found a cheap builder.

The negotiators first advertised in the newspaper that they wanted to build a swimming pool and detailed the construction requirements. As a result, contractors from A, B and C3 came to bid, and they all gave him the bidding list, which contained the cost and total cost of various projects. Negotiators carefully read the three bidding documents and found that the warm water equipment, filters, pumping equipment, design and payment terms provided were different, and the total cost was different.

The next thing is to invite these three contractors to his house to talk. The first one was at 9: 00 a.m., the second one was at 9: 00 a.m. 15 a.m., and the third one was at 9: 30 a.m. the three contractors arrived as scheduled, and they didn't get an immediate interview from the host, so they had to sit in the living room and talk to each other and wait.

10, the host came out and invited Mr. A, the first contractor, to the study for discussion. As soon as Mr. A entered the door, he declared that his swimming pool was always the best, and the design standards and construction requirements of a good swimming pool met the requirements. By the way, he also told his master that Mr. B usually uses old filters, while Mr. C left many unfinished projects, and now he is on the verge of bankruptcy. Then the host chatted with Mr. B, and learned from him that the water pipes provided by others were all plastic pipes, and he provided real copper pipes. What Mr. C told his master was that the filters used by others were of poor quality and could not be finished. After getting the money, he left them alone, but it was absolutely quality and quantity guaranteed.

By listening quietly and asking questions by innuendo, the negotiators basically understood the architectural design requirements of the swimming pool and the basic situation of the three contractors, and found that Mr. C had the lowest price, while Mr. B had the best architectural design quality. Finally, he chose Mr. B to build the swimming pool, but he could only offer the price to Mr. C. After some bargaining, the negotiation finally reached an agreement.

Case study:

In the above-mentioned successful negotiations, the objective basis was adopted as the fair standard, and the results were satisfactory to both parties.

The advantage of using objective standards is that it transforms the contest of subjective willpower between the two sides (often a lose-lose thing) into the efforts of both sides to solve problems. Is the other party willing to do it? For what? How to solve the problem? Change the two sides to compete with each other in various ways and communicate sincerely.

In order to use objective standards more effectively, there are several aspects that need attention:

First of all, try to explore the objective standards that can be used as the basis of the agreement. Generally speaking, there are often more than one such standard. For example: market price, precedent, scientific judgment, professional level, efficiency, cost, possible court decisions, etc. The more you dig, the more likely you are to choose good standards and help reach a fair agreement. Negotiators in this case may not know the cost of swimming pool, but the trick is to let three contractors tell their bottom line. Under the three standards, they will naturally find better results.

Second, the objective standards cited should at least make both sides feel appropriate in theory and independent of their willpower, otherwise it will also make people feel unfair. The contractor failed to comply with this. He used the information he had to put the negotiators in an ignorant position. Negotiators kept a low profile, made full use of the three to get familiar with each other and attack each other, and realized their wishes.

Third, let both sides work together to seek objective standards. If the other party makes a statement first and sets the price, you can ask:? How did you get this number? What's your reason? If the other party puts forward a standard, as long as it is feasible, you can put forward your opinions according to his standard to convince him, which is usually hard to resist. Although the case does not introduce what means the negotiator used in the negotiation with contractor B, I think the above method must be the first choice, because he has enough standards to determine the outcome of the negotiation.

Fourth, always keep a calm and rational attitude. After all, the actual situation of the negotiation may be complicated and changeable, and your opponent may only put forward a certain standard from his own interests, or even develop into an uncompromising principled position. You should be calm at this time. First of all, objective standards are diverse and don't have to be adopted. There may be other fairer standards. It should be decided by comparison; Secondly, if several objective criteria are essential, can we consider compromise to break the deadlock? Third, if necessary, you can invite a third party that both parties think is fair to submit all the standards to him for arbitration.

Fifth, do not give in to pressure. Bribery, threats, pretending to be the same, pledging with personality, refusing to give in, and so on. It's all stress. Adhering to objective standards means never giving in to pressure. No matter how ever-changing the other party is, the answer is the same: please explain the reasons and clarify the standards recognized by both parties. Unless the other party really does not give in, as long as you can continue to talk, you will gain an advantage, because your strength lies not only in your strong will, but also in your reasonable and legal attitude and sincere desire to solve the problem fairly.

Case analysis of business etiquette and negotiation Answer 2 A timber factory in a forest area in Northeast China is a medium-sized timber factory, and its business has been booming in recent years. In recent years, relying on the guaranteed advantages of raw materials, traditional wood products with relatively low cost have been manufactured locally, and considerable economic benefits have been achieved. However, the backward equipment and outdated product technology have limited the development of the factory. Therefore, the factory decided to invest heavily in introducing equipment and technology to further improve production efficiency and open up a broader market, so they signed an equipment import contract with a foreign woodworking machinery group through an international economic and technical cooperation company, with a total value of 165438+ 10,000 US dollars.

1April, 993, according to the contract, the foreign party landed the equipment at the factory, and the foreign personnel came to the factory for debugging and installation. During the acceptance inspection, the Chinese side found that some parts of the machine were seriously worn, and the operating rate was less than 70%, so it was impossible to put into production at all. The Chinese side pointed out to the foreign side that there are serious quality problems in your products, which do not meet the indicators of mechanical performance guarantee in the contract, and asked the foreign side to solve them. The foreign party indicated that it would send powerful technicians to the factory to learn and improve. Two months later, the working group sent by the foreign party came to the factory, replaced some substandard parts and re-debugged the machine, but it still failed to meet the technical standards stipulated in the contract after acceptance. After the commissioning study, the foreign party promised to go back to study, but there was no follow-up for three months. Later, the factory was coordinated by the authorities, and foreign personnel came to the factory for a debugging, but the acceptance still failed. Due to the installation and debugging, the domestic imported equipment basically stopped production, and it was inefficient for half a year. In order to put into production as soon as possible, China thinks that it can't go on like this, and is prepared to make some concessions through negotiations, as long as the whole meets the requirements of provincial production. This is exactly what foreign companies want. After the Chinese side put forward this proposal, it immediately agreed and signed a memorandum of equipment acceptance, and the foreign company conducted three debugging. However, after debugging, only one item is up to standard, and the Chinese side believes that it cannot pass the acceptance. However, the foreign company thinks that it has reached the prescribed standards, and there is a dispute between the two sides.

Originally, there were serious problems with the quality of foreign products, and China had every reason to show a tough attitude and argue. However, after the dispute between the two sides, the foreign side appeared justified and made the Chinese side miserable. What is the crux of it?

It turned out that in the memorandum signed by the two sides, with the consent of the Chinese side, some safeguard indicators were removed and some originally stipulated indicators were loosely adjusted. In fact, China has made concessions. However, the concessions must be purposeful and valuable, and the redrafted clauses must be clearly beneficial to China, otherwise it may cause new fluctuations. However, the memorandum has drawn up such a standard: the degree of wear and tear of some parts? Subject to a smooth touch? ; Some part? No obvious damage? , and so on. This vague, unmeasurable and unfounded clause has allowed the foreign party to take advantage of it. According to such vague regulations, they insist that the above standards have been reached, and the two sides are deadlocked. You China people don't think it is smooth, but I foreigners think it is. What should I do based on * *? China is strict about the terms it agrees to, but it is not clear in black and white. Obviously, I fell into a trap set by others!

Foreign companies adopt well-planned strategies, one after another. When they gave you a set of unqualified equipment, you can cheat if you can. If you can't cheat, you can take the second step, which is to delay and force you to make concessions. As a result, a memo was dragged out. The foreign debugging is patient, but the benefits of China are gone. At that time, a person in charge of the Chinese side said that when signing the contract, he didn't know much about the terms of the claim and didn't hire a lawyer. At that time, he only regarded the claim as an essential contract mode, and he didn't expect any disputes at all. It can be seen how weak the consciousness of this person in charge is. How can there be a strong sense of competition without a correct sense of dispute?

Has China changed its foreign business? Patience and sincerity? Attitude, refused to admit that the product quality is not up to standard, and finally forced to turn to the law, hire a lawyer, and ask the foreign party to compensate for the losses according to the original contract. The foreign party did everything possible to delay for a month before expressing its willingness to compensate according to the actual loss. The Chinese side thinks that the compensation can at least guarantee the funds, but the result is another dream of Conan! In the original contract, the shrewd foreign party wrote a claim formula in the claim clause. Because this formula is quite complicated, Chinese personnel accepted it without careful study when signing the contract. They didn't expect a dispute and didn't take this formula seriously at all. Now the foreign party is holding this formula and will give you a detailed explanation face to face. As soon as the results came out, foreigners looked at the screen and laughed, while China people looked at the screen in a daze. It turns out that according to this formula, even if the equipment does not meet the requirements at all, it will be regarded as scrapped, and the foreign party will only compensate 0.8% of the total import price of the equipment! What's more, you have admitted that one of the indicators has reached the standard! The loss of165438+100000 only compensated about 65438+100000. The person in charge of the Chinese side was angered, but the foreign side smiled politely.

At this time, the dispute could not be resolved, and the lawyer wrote a proposal for arbitration according to law. But when we saw the arbitration clause in the contract, we were surprised. If arbitration is conducted in accordance with the contract, China will still suffer. Because the contract says:? If there is any dispute in this contract, arbitration shall be conducted in the country where the defendant is located. ? In other words, if China proposes arbitration, it can only be conducted in the other country, and China will pay a huge price. But if it is not submitted for arbitration, it will suffer huge losses. However, it is impossible for the foreign party to submit to arbitration. If China wants the foreign party to submit for arbitration, China can only have one means, that is, refusing to pay for the goods. In international trade, the irrevocable letter of guarantee issued by the Bank of China comes into effect together with the contract. Banks guarantee their credibility and abide by international practices, and it is impossible to refuse to pay. In other words, there is no objective possibility that China will default. In this case, China is really caught in the dilemma of arbitration.

The other party is well aware of this, and they deeply understand the contradiction that China wants to arbitrate but is unwilling to go to foreign countries for arbitration. Every time the Chinese side proposes to solve the problem simply through arbitration, they immediately attack by innuendo, reminding you how long the arbitration in their country will last and how much it will cost. When China hesitated again and again, they played a new trick and started a new attack. They repeatedly put forward so-called new solutions and compromises when China couldn't get in and stop. Finally, in desperation, China accepted the total compensation of the other party 12% and provided the final plan of the other 3%. That machine has been useless for two years and has not created any economic benefits. Although I can barely run now, I still need constant adjustment and repair. Even so, the production efficiency is only about 60%.

case analysis

In this case, when signing the contract, our country did not carefully determine the details of the contract, just assumed that there would be no dispute, and did not clearly understand the terms of the contract. Finally, we were deceived and could not recover the losses, which caused great losses to the manufacturers. Therefore, in the negotiation and signing of the contract, we should pay attention to determining the details of the negotiation and signing, and we should not be careless, otherwise it will easily lead to disputes and be unfavorable to everyone.

Details determine success or failure. In the process of trading, it is often a detail that determines the fate of the whole. Therefore, in the process of determining the details of the transaction, negotiators should have the spirit of attaching importance to details and cannot ignore any details.

It is also worth noting that the negotiation is a battle of wits. It may be that both parties cheat each other for their own interests, especially for unfamiliar customers or customers who are not long-term business partners. Be careful at this time, don't be self-righteous. Before signing the contract, we should confirm every detail, point out the unreasonable places in time and discuss with them. If we can't reach an agreement, we'd rather give up the negotiation.

Of course, it should also be noted that the details of the contract should generally be discussed and formulated by both parties, and cannot be decided by one party alone. Otherwise, it is an invalid clause.

1On April 4th, 989, Company M of Hong Kong issued a firm offer to Company K, the agent of Company G in Hong Kong, stipulating that the reply would be valid before 5pm that day. The firm's merger and acquisition content is: Peruvian or Chilean fishmeal, with a quantity of 65,438+00,000 tons, with more than 5% less. Price terms: M & amp； G Shanghai, the price is $483 per metric ton, delivery date:1May-June, 989, payment by letter of credit, claim and other conditions. On the same day, Company K contacted Company G in Beijing and faxed the opinions of Company G to Company M, asking Company M to reduce the price of $483 per metric ton to the current international market price of $480. At the same time, Company K proposes amendments to the claim terms, and attaches the usual claim terms proposed by Company G, clearly stating: If you agree with the above two points, please inform and sign the contract as soon as possible? .

On April 5th, M Company and G Company in Hong Kong negotiated directly by telephone, and both sides made concessions. Company G agreed to accept the price of US$ 483 per metric ton, but insisted on amending the claim clause, that is, within 45 days after the arrival of the goods, if any problems are found through inspection by China commodity inspection agency, a claim should be filed within this period? . As a result, Company M also agreed to amend this clause. At this point, the two sides reached an oral agreement. On April 7th, Company M reiterated the main contents of the firm offer and the result of telephone negotiation between the two parties in the telex. Company G called back to Company M on the same day and informed Mr. A, the department manager of Company G, to sign a contract with Company M directly during the Canton Fair. On April 22nd, the vice president of Hong Kong M Company came to the Canton Fair to meet with the department manager of G Company, and handed him the signed contract of M Company, who said that he would read it before signing it. Four days later (April 26th), when M Company sent someone to pick up the contract, the department manager still didn't sign it. The vice president of M Company instructed the dispatched person to claim back the unsigned contract of G Company. On May 2, Company M sent a telegram to Company G, reiterating the contents of the telex exchanged between the two parties on April 7, and talking about the contact between the two parties during the Canton Fair, saying that Company G failed to fulfill the contract and failed to open a letter of credit according to the terms of the contract, so as to claim compensation for the losses of Company M unless Company G promised to fulfill its obligations within 24 hours.

On May 3, Company G sent a fax to Company M, saying: On April 22, Mr. A, the department manager of the company, made it clear when he received the contract text. We can't sign the contract until the terms of the contract are perfected and supplemented. ? Before the buyer and the seller signed the contract, there was no question of the buyer opening a letter of credit. Company M advocated the contract on April 26th. Company G thinks that Company M has changed its mind, and it is unnecessary to cancel the contract without perfecting the terms of the contract. There is no need to wait for my signature to take effect, making it clear that there is no question of taking responsibility at all. On May 5, Company M only sent a telegram to Company G, arguing that the company's claim for the contract does not mean the cancellation of the contract, and the binding contract between the two parties still exists, reiterating that it will reserve the right to claim for the losses suffered.

On May 6th, Company G replied as follows:

(1) The buyer confirms that the seller's quotation is an international trade practice, and the quantity does not mean that a transaction is finally completed.

(2) On April 22nd, when we explicitly proposed to improve and supplement the terms of the fishmeal contract, you just signed the contract unilaterally without making any statement about our requirements.

(3) On April 26th, we hastily took back the contract without waiting for it to be signed by your. We didn't mention the perfection and supplement of the contract terms, nor did we express any opinions. Now your company requires me to open a performance letter of credit. All the contracts we want to open have been withdrawn by you. How can we open a performance letter of credit?

As mentioned above, you are not sincere about this transaction, and you brought it up many days later. Therefore, we deeply regret your actions. Therefore, we don't have to bear any responsibility for this.

On may 15, company m sent another telegram to company g, informing the company's vice president to go to Beijing and bringing the contract text for company g to sign.

On May 22nd, Company M sent another telegram to Company G, saying that because the vice president of Company M could not meet the personnel of Company G in Beijing, the contract text was sent to Company G by express mail for signature. And asked G Company to reply whether to sign the contract or still confirm that there is no contractual relationship between the two parties, and also proposed that G Company agreed to submit the dispute to London arbitration institution for arbitration without confirming the existence of the contract. On May 23rd, Company G replied to Company M by telex, reiterating the contents of its fax letters dated May 3rd and 6th.

On June 7th, Company M called Company G again, restated the communication between the two parties, reiterated that the contract had been established, and asked Company G to reconfirm and open a letter of credit. /kloc-in June of 0/2, Company G reiterated in its fax letter to Company M that it was Company M that withdrew the contract on April 26th and unilaterally terminated the contract. And inform G company that the user has withdrawn the order and reserve the right to claim for the losses caused by it. At the same time, it is said that after more than a month, G Company has been unable to persuade users to accept the sale of M Company and return the contract text sent by M Company by express delivery. ..

On June 7th/KLOC-0 and June 2nd/KLOC-0, Company M telegraphed Company G and Company K respectively, pointing out that Company G denied the validity of the contract and refused to open a letter of credit, and Company M had the right to claim damages, expenses and losses. After many consultations and contacts, both sides held their own opinions and failed to solve the problem.

1On July 26th, 989, Hong Kong M Company filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court of Hong Kong through a lawyer, suing G Company for breach of contract and requesting the court to order G Company to compensate for the losses.

case analysis

In this case, due to the dispute over the terms of the contract, both parties finally had to resort to the law. Prior to this, the two sides did not negotiate the terms of the contract at all, nor did they carefully study the problems existing in the contract.

Attention should be paid to when signing the contract:

Grasp your own advantages when drafting the contract. The party drafting the contract has a great advantage, because when you draft the contract, you will think of some problems that you didn't think of during the oral negotiation. If you draft a contract, you can draft terms that are favorable to you. When the other party sees the contract, they will rack their brains to figure out how to talk to you about these terms.

Take notes during the negotiation. Put a mark next to the terms you think should be included in the final agreement. It will remind you not to forget. Besides, you don't think these contents have been discussed in the negotiations, so there is no need to write them in.

If you are a negotiation team, let your people read your notes. You are in a hurry to reach an agreement, and you may guess that the other party will agree with what they actually disagree with.

Before signing the contract, you must read the current text from beginning to end. The other party may have made some changes to the contract while you were not paying attention.

It should be noted that the contract shall not be changed or dissolved at will, unless there are necessary preconditions and certain legal conditions have been met when changing and dissolving the contract, and if losses are caused, the corresponding liability for compensation shall be borne. The party proposing to change or terminate the contract shall give the other party time to reconsider. Before the new agreement is signed, the original contract is still valid.